They are abusing their power.

[The-Devil]

Local rules:
@marlboroza
@ morvillz7z
@Quickseller
are not allowed to post here.

@marlboroza and @Quickseller You guys are really illiterate and stupid. I made it clear in my post that you guys do not have permission to post here. I am sure you guys are really illiterate. Go to school to get educated. Noob.

[1714104638]

1714104638

[1714104638]

1714104638

[1714104638]

1714104638

[o_e_l_e_o]

I am sure you guys are really illiterate. Go to school to get educated. Noob.

And now the true colors show. Insults, retaliatory trust ratings, fake flags, the works. This is straight out of cryptohunter's/TOAA's book, and look how it turned out for him. You really aren't helping yourself here.

[suchmoon]

I don't get the purpose of the flag. Is it for sockpuppeting? Or for plagiarism? Doesn't sound like a proper use of the flag system.

[hacker1001101001]

I don't get the purpose of the flag. Is it for sockpuppeting? Or for plagiarism? Doesn't sound like a proper use of the flag system.

Thanks for pointing, I was bit dump while supporting it but I too think that it is not an proper use of flag system. Deleted my opinion on the flag.

[Quickseller]

I don't get the purpose of the flag. Is it for sockpuppeting? Or for plagiarism? Doesn't sound like a proper use of the flag system.

Obvious merit farming. Using deception to obtain merit under fraudulent pretenses.

[Lauda]

Obvious merit farming. Using deception to obtain merit under fraudulent pretenses.

I don't get the purpose of the flag. Is it for sockpuppeting? Or for plagiarism? Doesn't sound like a proper use of the flag system.

Deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, see theymoses quote on account sales[1].

Thanks for pointing, I was bit dump while supporting it but I too think that it is not an proper use of flag system. Deleted my opinion on the flag.

Thankfully you are wrong about this.
[1] Quickie and Laudie agreeing may be the beginning of the end of this place.

[suchmoon]

I don't get the purpose of the flag. Is it for sockpuppeting? Or for plagiarism? Doesn't sound like a proper use of the flag system.

Obvious merit farming. Using deception to obtain merit under fraudulent pretenses.

How is that "a high risk of losing money"? Merit is not money.

[hacker1001101001]

Deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, see theymoses quote on account sales[1].

OP didn't asked TMAN to give merits to him or put on some highly intelligent trap to gain those merits hence not deceptive.

Thanks for pointing, I was bit dump while supporting it but I too think that it is not an proper use of flag system. Deleted my opinion on the flag.

Thankfully you are wrong about this.

Hopefully, I am not.

[Lauda]

Deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, see theymoses quote on account sales[1].

OP didn't asked TMAN to give merits to him or put on some highly intelligent trap to gain those merits hence not deceptive.

Any kind of highly deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, there is no going around this. Precedent has been set. Why are you guys  trying to defend people who are trying to defraud others (regardless in what way, even if it something as simple as merits)?

[hacker1001101001]

Deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, see theymoses quote on account sales[1].

OP didn't asked TMAN to give merits to him or put on some highly intelligent trap to gain those merits hence not deceptive.

Any kind of highly deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, there is no going around this. Precedent has been set. Why are you guys  trying to defend people who are trying to defraud others (regardless in what way, even if it something as simple as merits)?

Not defending him, just not supporting wrong use of something which is setup to be used abided by some rules for the betterment. I can't act like you making my own rules here, it would look bad on me.

[Lauda]

Deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, see theymoses quote on account sales.

OP didn't asked TMAN to give merits to him or put on some highly intelligent trap to gain those merits hence not deceptive.

Any kind of highly deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, there is no going around this. Precedent has been set. Why are you guys  trying to defend people who are trying to defraud others (regardless in what way, even if it something as simple as merits)?

Not defending him, just not supporting wrong use of something which is setup to be used abided by some rules for the betterment. I can't act like you making my own rules here, it would look bad on me.

Are you stupid?

Deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, see theymoses quote on account sales.

Here, I'm even going to do your job for you:

Agreed, creating a type-1 flag for sold accounts is an appropriate usage of the system. Individual cases can be debated on their merits, though; for example, these points of view could all be defended:
 - Some people think that trading an account is an inherently untrustworthy act in 100% of cases.
 - Some people think that trading an account is usually untrustworthy, but is OK if it's made extremely clear that the account traded hands.
 - Some people think that trading an account is OK unless active deception is used (eg. lying in order to say, "this is not a sold account").
 - Some people think that a little lying is not enough for even a type-1 flag, and a flag is only merited if there's also some additional underlying shady behavior; in other words, account trading can only further degrade an existing untrustworthy act, but cannot be considered flag material in itself.

I specifically do not want to decide which of the above is correct. The flag is an appropriate usage of the system in any case, though.

Look where active deception i.e. what OP did is. The points go from the strictest to the most lenient one. In case you all missed it, the quote also directly implies that flag type-1 for lying is appropriate use of the system even in passive deception let alone active deception. Some people may disagree with it and thus not support it, but it is appropriate use nevertheless.
If you don't see it, or refuse to see it I shalt post it at maximum font size on every other post.

[tmfp]

Deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, see theymoses quote on account sales.

Do you have a link to that quote, please?

[Lauda]

Deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, see theymoses quote on account sales.

Do you have a link to that quote, please?

Just updated the post, see above. My apologies. It's from a PM response from an inquiry with permission to post. Since he didn't dispute it since October, you can safely assume it being the original despite a lack of formal confirmation.

[suchmoon]

Any kind of highly deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, there is no going around this. Precedent has been set. Why are you guys  trying to defend people who are trying to defraud others (regardless in what way, even if it something as simple as merits)?

It's not about defending a merit farmer. The wording about "high risk of losing money" is important in this context. I don't see the high risk of losing money here.

[Lauda]

Any kind of highly deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, there is no going around this. Precedent has been set. Why are you guys  trying to defend people who are trying to defraud others (regardless in what way, even if it something as simple as merits)?

It's not about defending a merit farmer. The wording about "high risk of losing money" is important in this context. I don't see the high risk of losing money here.

I think your focus on "losing money" and the exact "high" (risk) wording has made you miss out on how this system is supposed to be used. Is there a high risk of losing money with every purchased account? Even theymos argued against it ("Individual cases can be debated on their merits, though"), and said it was still appropriate use of the system.

[suchmoon]

I think your focus on "losing money" and the exact "high" (risk) wording has made you miss out on how this system is supposed to be used. Is there a high risk of losing money with every purchased account? Even theymos argued against it ("Individual cases can be debated on their merits, though"), and said it was still appropriate use of the system.

When you support this flag you're saying that there is a high risk of losing money dealing with this particular user (not in some hypothetical account sale scenario) and that the referenced thread contains evidence.

I will oppose the flag for now because I "believe that it is at least partially false".

[Lauda]

I think your focus on "losing money" and the exact "high" (risk) wording has made you miss out on how this system is supposed to be used. Is there a high risk of losing money with every purchased account? Even theymos argued against it ("Individual cases can be debated on their merits, though"), and said it was still appropriate use of the system.

When you support this flag you're saying that there is a high risk of losing money dealing with this particular user (not in some hypothetical account sale scenario) and that the referenced thread contains evidence.

I will oppose the flag for now because I "believe that it is at least partially false".

I am very saddened by your misunderstanding of what is appropriate use of this system even in light of theymoses quotes. 

[suchmoon]

I am very saddened by your misunderstanding of what is appropriate use of this system even in light of theymoses quotes. 

I'm pretty sure I'm using it appropriately to oppose a flag that is not meeting the minimum requirements. Unless you can ELI5 the high risk of losing money in this particular situation.

[Lauda]

I am very saddened by your misunderstanding of what is appropriate use of this system even in light of theymoses quotes.  

I'm pretty sure I'm using it appropriately to oppose a flag that is not meeting the minimum requirements. Unless you can ELI5 the high risk of losing money in this particular situation.

No, that's not what I meant. You are using it appropriately to oppose it, but we are also using it appropriately to create and support it. That's the crux of theymoses quote, but it doesn't seem that it go through to you.

[suchmoon]

No, that's not what I meant. You are using it appropriately to oppose it, but we are also using it appropriately to create and support it. That's the crux of theymoses quote, but it doesn't seem that it go through to you.

Sure. We can flag each other for liking lemons or melons. Look at korner / Bitcoin SV flagging everyone without any consequences. Everything appropriate I guess.